[thompsonsjkc]

Creating the Electoral College and denying the vote to women, blacks and poor people were both part of the Framers' desire to keep power in the hands of people like themselves (and I have a sneaking suspicion many "strict constructionalists" would prefer things that way).

While there were amendments to guarantee that women and blacks had the right to vote, is there anything that would explicitly exclude them? I can't find anything. If the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit something, why are we to assume that said thing is prohibited (ie: if the constitution doesn't say that women aren't allowed to vote, shouldn't they be allowed to?).

On another note, the Full Faith and Credit clause:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Wouldn't that cover the Defense of Marriage Act, a general law? If a state wants to permit same-sex marriage, fine, that's their choice, but states that don't want to shouldn't be forced to recognize them. Congress has legislated by general law that the states need not recognize same-sex marriage records of other states, which seems to me to be covered by this clause.

[G.Mason]

"Besides being undemocratic, the Constitution is also, in places, just poorly written. Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals. The easiest and fairest solution would be to just rewrite the Second Amendment, but because the Constitution has taken on the aura of sanctity in our political culture, there is little likelihood of that happening."

The left will go to any and all lengths to promote their propaganda, thereby proving their stupidity.

Were this moron able to research the words used in the Constitution, and place the meaning of each in the context of that time, he would have a clear view of what those words meant then, and mean now.

A perusal of the Federalists Papers would also enable this miscreant to decipher to exactly just what it was the Honorable Founding Fathers spoke.

Of course Jeff Mankoff is not interested in truth. He is interested in the continued destruction of these United States, from within.

When the SHTF there will be no lack of targets.

[Hank Rearden]

Well, according to Google, enlightenment may be directed his way thusly:

jeffrey.mankoff@yale.edu

[Congressman Billybob]

I sent the following letter to the Editor-in-Chief. If I receive any reply, I will post it here. If I get a chance to publish a reply article in the Yale Daily News, I will post the article on FreeRepublic as well.

Dear Sir/Madame,

Back when ice covered the Earth (1963-64) I was a Senior Editor of the Yale Daily News. So, though I don't read it regularly, I pay greater attention to it than most readers who encounter its articles on the Internet. So I started reading the "Constitution Worship" with interest, but it wound up as disgust.

After Yale there was law school, Ph.D. work (currently ABD), and 32 years' practice in the US Supreme Court. I've also published seven books and about 600 articles. You'll probably find two of my books in the Sterling Library, one of them on constitutional law.

I'm not about to write a reply to the "Constitution Worship" article as a letter to you. Several times over the years I've sent a letter to the Chairman of the News (do you still use that title which was Joe Lieberman's in my day?). But I have never received so much as a "thanks for your letter" reply.

If you want a well-grounded, scholarly reply to the article you just published, I will be happy to supply that. Just tell me the length you want, and the date you want it.

I hope to hear from you. The Yale community deserves to have an alternative argument to that presented in this article, as food for thought. But, if I don't hear from you, I'll gather that opposing voices are unwelcome.

Cordially,

John /s/

John / Billybob

[KarlInOhio]

I agree that the Constitution needs a few changes. Here are my suggestions.

Article I, Section 7: (addition):
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide specific reference to the line in the Constitution giving the United States the authority specified in the bill.

Article I, Section 8:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, tThe right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Section 1: THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE!!!

Section 2: The Supreme Court, Congress and the President are directed to read this amendment every day at the start of work.

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

[Condor51]

"As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian.

Okay... either this 'scientist' guy Dahl is dumber than a bag of rocks or he's being intentionally deceptive. My money is on the first because:

• The Senate is not about "equal representation". That's why we have the HOUSE of Representatives, where representation IS determined by population.

• And as Sen. George Allen corrected nitwit gazillionaire Jon Corzine on the Senate floor a few months back during the "Filibuster Issue" (verbally spanked him goooood), the original purpose of the Senate was to look out for, protect and promote the rights of the various states. And not about as Corzine said, "looking out for the rights of the minority". Nor was it about "equal representation" of U.S. citizens - again that's the function of the House.

• That's also why Senators were originally 'elected' (selected is more like it) by the Legislatures of the states and not directly by the people. The 'Framers' figured who better to know what was important to each state that the legislature of that state. Direct election didn't happen until 1912(?) with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

Ergo, if this 'scientist' guy isn't aware of these little facts he's got to be a real maroon. There's no other way to explain his utter confusion over the original role of the two 'houses' of Congress. And saying this is "undemocratic" is preposterous.

So dam straight mr 'scientist', in the U.S. Senate Wyoming has just as much "clout" as California - deal with it. Or are you "stuck on stupid"?

[darkangel82]

Jeff Wankoff just hates the Constitution because it gets in the way of his socialist dreams.

[Ditto]

This is what passes for a PhD student at Yale these days? Good grief, this guy has no clue.

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic.

Intentionally so. The Framers saw democracy for what it was -- two wolves and a sheep voting on the diner menu. I agree with them. Democracy in government is a short cut to dictatorship.

Take the Second Amendment, which mentions the need for a well-regulated militia and conferring the right to bear arms. Because of the Framers' unclear wording, no one has been able to establish definitively whether this right belongs only to the militia or to individuals.

Even a smidgen of history would have told this dolt that definition of "militia" in 1787 was all able-bodied males between the ages of 15 and 50. Even left-wing Constitutional experts like Lawrence Tribe agree that the term "militia" means citizens and not the National Guard.

"...denying the vote to women, blacks and poor people were both part of the Framers' desire to keep power in the hands of people like themselves

I would surely like to see this idiot point to any word in the Constitution that denied the right to vote to anyone. It isn't there and never was.

Really sad. A 6th year student without clue #1. I'd love to see him trying to define Federalism. I bet $100 he would get it entirely backwards.

[dfwgator]

Don't get stuck on stupid, Jeff.

[Sloth]

if only legislators, and the public, were not so deeply attached to the Constitution

ROTFLOL... stop it, I cant breathe!

[antiRepublicrat]

s Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian.

And if we went by population alone, Wyoming would be insignificant, with almost no input to the federal government. I seem to remember the Constitution had a solution for that problem. What was it again? Oh yeah, the Senate.

This is what Yale is putting out for political scientists these days? I learned this in junior high!

[Aquinasfan]

The Constitution in particular needs to be stripped of much of the mystic awe surrounding it

He's just mad because Yale has been stripped of much of the mystic awe surrounding it because of fools like him.

[Itzlzha]

As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian. The Constitution is also responsible for burdening us with the Electoral College, a body designed to purposely undermine popular sovereignty.

Geez...is this clown REALLY this stupid?

The 2000 election, when Al Gore outpolled George Bush but was denied the presidency by the Electoral College (with an assist by the Supreme Court), is the most recent example of 18th-century oligarchy trampling 21st-century democracy.

Yup..I guess he has his PhD in STUPIDITY with a co-major in Socialist Drivel!

Here's my best response to this Proto-Marxist buffoon!

"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid.

You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.

Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know.

I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel."

[RightWhale]

the document's adoption in 1787

Hmm. Something like 160,000 men were involved in creating this 'document'. Some of them may have discussed the issues contained in the proposed Constitution with their wives and mistresses, some may have not. 1787 was the year of the Convention. Historical analysis of what actually happened and why began about a century later and is still under discussion.

[Freebird Forever]

Recognizing them as crucial pieces of American history is one thing, but worshiping them like sacred texts goes too far.

It appears that young Mr. Mankoff is attempting to gain the favor of the CFR and other members of the ruling elite. They've been subtly pushing this agenda for decades.

[abigailsmybaby]

His edgumacation has been a gross waste of money.

[Owl558]

"Jeff Mankoff is a sixth-year Ph.D. student in the History Department."

Dummy has obviously never read the Federalist Papers. Such ignorance in a PhD student is simply staggering. He relies on the reader's ignorance to sound credible.

People like this is why I remain an armed citizen.

[lilylangtree]

"the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian"

Guess the dweeb missed high school civics. The fact that the House of Reps is based on representation by population. The framers recognized the discrepancy and that's why we have the US Senate where every state has equal representation regardless of population.

[wolfcreek]

Is this some post-election drivel for when they lose the next election?

[Mad Dawgg]

"As Yale political scientist Robert Dahl has pointed out, the Constitution is grossly undemocratic. Since Wyoming, with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, has the same clout in the Senate as California, with almost 34 million, each Wyomingite counts 68 times as much as each Californian. The Constitution is also responsible for burdening us with the Electoral College, a body designed to purposely undermine popular sovereignty. The 2000 election, when Al Gore outpolled George Bush but was denied the presidency by the Electoral College (with an assist by the Supreme Court), is the most recent example of 18th-century oligarchy trampling 21st-century democracy."

Mr. Mankoff if the USA were indeed a Democracy then I would wholeheartedly agree with your assessment but being that we are (and always have been) a Constitutional REPUBLIC well lets just say you are full of feces.